Dismissed

Jagannath Panda v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC9 Sept 2026CRLMP/924/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought a direction not to be summoned at the police station for a civil dispute involving harassment. Finding the dispute civil and settled out of court, the court directed the opposite party to cease summoning the petitioner.

What did the court decide?

Direction to opposite party No.4 not to unnecessarily summon or direct the petitioner to appear at the police station henceforth.

Jagannath Panda Vs State of Odisha — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Orissa HC (2026)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMP No.924 of 2026 CNR No. ODHC010536812026

¶2

Jagannath Panda

¶3

…. Petitioner

¶4

Mr. H. Panda, Advocate

¶5

-Versus-

¶6

State of Odisha & others

¶7

…. Opposite Parties

¶8

Mr. Satyabrata Panda, ASC

¶9

CORAM:

¶10

MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK

Order No.

ORDER 09.09.2026

Heard Mr. Panda, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S. Panda, learned ASC for the State.

¶15

Instant CRLMP is filed by the petitioner for a direction to the opposite parties and particularly, opposite party No.4 not to unnecessarily summon and detain him at the PS in connection with a civil dispute on the grounds stated.

¶16

Mr. Panda, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the dispute is civil in nature and therefore, the petitioner should not be frequently called upon to attend the PS. It is submitted to the Court that there is harassment from the side of the local police and hence, the CRLMP.

¶17

This Court by order dated 22^nd July, 2026 had directed the State to take instructions on the complaint of the petitioner. Today, Mr. S. Panda, learned ASC submits the written instruction received from opposite party No.4 dated 9^th August, 2026. On perusal of the same, this Court finds that the parties

¶18

Page 1 of 3

¶19

with local gentries had appeared at the PS and after a discussion settled their dispute amicably and submitted an undertaking signed by them.

¶20

In fact, a GD Entry has been made at the PS and in that connection, on appearance of the parties at the PS, a settlement has been arrived at. A copy of the undertaking submitted by both the sides is at Annexure-II to the intimation of opposite party No.4. It is made to understand that the petitioner and the complainant are business partners involved in construction projects. According to opposite party No.4, there was a misunderstanding between the parties and as a result, such a settlement was reached at, but then, the complaint of petitioner is that he is quite often directed to appear at the PS even thereafter. This Court is of the view that the police should not unnecessarily intervene in dispute of civil nature leaving it for the parties to work out the remedy according to law unless and until any such report is lodged alleging commission of cognizable offences. Having said that, this Court, considering the written intimation dated 9^th August, 2026 received from opposite party No.4, directs that the dispute since civil in nature, the petitioner should not be unnecessary summoned or directed to appear at the PS henceforth as it amounts to harassment and even beyond jurisdiction and accordingly, it is ordered.

¶21

In the result, the CRLMP stands disposed of with the direction as aforesaid for compliance by opposite party No.4.

¶22

Page 2 of 3

¶23

Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per rules.

¶24

A copy of the order be handed over to Mr. Panda, learned ASC for the State for intimation and compliance.

¶25

(R.K. Pattanaik) Judge

¶26

T.Tudu

¶27

Signature Not Verified

¶28

Digitally Signed Signed by: THAKURDAS TUDU Reason: Authentication Location: OHC,CTC Date: 11-Sep-2026 12:06:23

¶29

Page 3 of 3

Jagannath Panda v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jagannath Panda v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases